jackson vile
G.O.A.T.
Federer is the sun around whom the lives of many ****s spin and spin and spin...in their fedsolar system
Except for when he loses then he becomes an old man again with sickness and injuries LOL
Federer is the sun around whom the lives of many ****s spin and spin and spin...in their fedsolar system
OOOOOOOO...thanks treb.
Except for when he loses then he becomes an old man again with sickness and injuries LOL
Now, back to Vijay...he was one of the most talented guys of the 70´s...he was not that consistent ( like Lutz or Pecci) to make his talent regualr top ten meat...but he owned all of the great players, from Laver and Rosewall to Connors and Borg, at leats for a few matches...
take 1984 " perfect " John Mc Enroe season...he lost to Amrtitraj ( he just lost 2 matches in the whole year) t Cincinnati. that proves the greatness of Vijay ( by then, much more involved in producing big Hollywood movies that improving his ranking).
Oh¡¡ in 1987, he and Krishan met the unvincibles Swedes at the DC finals...I knew they were gonna lose, but I can´t think of a more exciting DC team than Vijay and Ramesh...pure,pure talent.
That is rather impressive, I have to admit I did not know much about him until now.
he also played Wimbledon classics, against Borg in 79 ( Vijay lost it rather than Bjorn won it) and Connors in 81 ( the same thing)
I will have to look him up, this is getting really interesting now. Seems like he has played all of the GOATs
Well, with marcub, it's unclear if his mama isn't also his cousin, or sister, being from the Appalachians and all!
he also played Wimbledon classics, against Borg in 79 ( Vijay lost it rather than Bjorn won it) and Connors in 81 ( the same thing)
Kiki, i"ve been away for a while and I hate to respond to a post from 8 months ago, but I've got some thoughts.
1)LAVER: I've watched more clips and matches of Laver from the 60s and 70s. I will now admit that he had a tremendous baseline game. I was wrong to assume that the power baseline game of Borg and Connors, was too evolved for Laver to compete. He just got older and maybe lost a step. But he was still competitive in the mid 70s. It certainly was a difficult style for Laver to play against, but he would have adjusted in his prime.
I see references to Laver's height, that imply he would have the same success as Ferrer if he was playing in this era. Now, I am in my early 40s, so I did not grow up watching Laver. But I know this. Ferrer, Hewitt, Nalbandian and Davydenko do not possess the talent, skill or tennis IQ of Rod Laver. Look at Laver's ability to hit the 1st volley and immediately put his opponent on defense. No matter how hard the passing shot was being hit. Nobody can hit a firm 1st volley better than Laver in his prime. Yes, the top 4 players are virtually the same size. 6'1" to 6'3" and 175 to 185 lbs. The perfect size for a modern male pro tennis player. But that does not mean that a sub 6ft player cannot have Grand Slam success in the future.
Vijay Amritraj covers the AO and Wimbledon in India and he's the face of tennis here. His commentary is pulsating(don't have a link of his commentary) and hes pretty much always spot on about his predictions and tennis analysis(Indian fans would know). I personally think he's the best commentator with Mark Woodforde(RG commie) a close second.
I've noticed he calls Laver the greatest based on his 69 CYGS and 62 pro slam. Keeps raving about the calendar slam like it's the best thing since sliced bread. He also talks about how Laver would win sets 4 and 5(after being down 2 sets to 1) , 6-2,6-1 or something, emphasizing how relaxed/mentally tough he was.
Here's an interview of him with Federer(after Fed won RG) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwxYXwvEg1E
So do you agree with his assessment that based on Laver's CYGS alone he's the greatest? Is he putting too much stock in the CYGS?
Vijay Amritraj covers the AO and Wimbledon in India and he's the face of tennis here. His commentary is pulsating(don't have a link of his commentary) and hes pretty much always spot on about his predictions and tennis analysis(Indian fans would know). I personally think he's the best commentator with Mark Woodforde(RG commie) a close second.
I've noticed he calls Laver the greatest based on his 69 CYGS and 62 pro slam. Keeps raving about the calendar slam like it's the best thing since sliced bread. He also talks about how Laver would win sets 4 and 5(after being down 2 sets to 1) , 6-2,6-1 or something, emphasizing how relaxed/mentally tough he was.
Here's an interview of him with Federer(after Fed won RG) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwxYXwvEg1E
So do you agree with his assessment that based on Laver's CYGS alone he's the greatest? Is he putting too much stock in the CYGS?
Very true - always wondered why those brothers didn't well in the pro ranks. Many years later after their retirement we finally found out why - apparently, they were very much into the night life and the ladies. Tennis was secondary.Now, back to Vijay...he was one of the most talented guys of the 70´s...he was not that consistent ( like Lutz or Pecci) to make his talent regualr top ten meat...but he owned all of the great players, from Laver and Rosewall to Connors and Borg, at leats for a few matches...
take 1984 " perfect " John Mc Enroe season...he lost to Amrtitraj ( he just lost 2 matches in the whole year) t Cincinnati. that proves the greatness of Vijay ( by then, much more involved in producing big Hollywood movies that improving his ranking).
Oh¡¡ in 1987, he and Krishan met the unvincibles Swedes at the DC finals...I knew they were gonna lose, but I can´t think of a more exciting DC team than Vijay and Ramesh...pure,pure talent.
Thanks for your thoughts and respsosnding to my mail.I don´t think it is a problem it is an old post, like it is never a problem bringing up an old time great, like Laver.
I have stated many times that, having seen tennis for more than 40 years, Laver is the most impressive guy I have seen according to my standarts of talent and enjoyment.This guy, like led Zeppelin for Rock and Roll are guys that, not only remain unmatched, but you appreciate more and more from a tecnichal standpoint as time goes by.
If the Laver I watched was clearly post prime, then I just cannot figure out how good peak Laver ( 1963-1969 ) might have been.
When I think of tennis, Rod Laver is the player that better fits my description.I respect other opinions, but I don´t think i will ever change mine ( although in the future we can see an improved version of Laver)
Now, back to Vijay...he was one of the most talented guys of the 70´s...he was not that consistent ( like Lutz or Pecci) to make his talent regualr top ten meat...but he owned all of the great players, from Laver and Rosewall to Connors and Borg, at leats for a few matches...
take 1984 " perfect " John Mc Enroe season...he lost to Amrtitraj ( he just lost 2 matches in the whole year) t Cincinnati. that proves the greatness of Vijay ( by then, much more involved in producing big Hollywood movies that improving his ranking).
Oh¡¡ in 1987, he and Krishan met the unvincibles Swedes at the DC finals...I knew they were gonna lose, but I can´t think of a more exciting DC team than Vijay and Ramesh...pure,pure talent.
Forgot to finish my comments. Armitraj was an excellent player. Certainly a phenomenal talent. I didn't realize he was 6'4". Great movement for a guy of his stature. Surprising that he didn't even get to a Grand Slam Final.
lacked discipline.Like many other supertalents like Lutz,Okker,Pecci,Rios,Mecir...
you rate Bob Lutz as a supertalent? i´ve only see him as one half of a legendary doubles did he achieve anything as a singles player? when i started watching tennis in the mid 70´s his singles days might have been over
He was fantastic from 1970 till 1974 or 1975.he almost won a WCT Final ( lost in a close five setter to prime Ashe) but he was never consistent enough.back in 1969, he was clearly the second best US player behind Ashe and Laver and Rosewall saw in him a future nº 1.he wasted it, and injuries helped also.
you rate Bob Lutz as a supertalent? i´ve only see him as one half of a legendary doubles did he achieve anything as a singles player? when i started watching tennis in the mid 70´s his singles days might have been over
Believe it or not many thought that Lutz (when healthy) was the more talented of the Smith/Lutz doubles team and that was when Smith seemed invincible for a little while.
Vijay knows his tennis history.Vijay Amritraj covers the AO and Wimbledon in India and he's the face of tennis here. His commentary is pulsating(don't have a link of his commentary) and hes pretty much always spot on about his predictions and tennis analysis(Indian fans would know). I personally think he's the best commentator with Mark Woodforde(RG commie) a close second.
I've noticed he calls Laver the greatest based on his 69 CYGS and 62 pro slam. Keeps raving about the calendar slam like it's the best thing since sliced bread. He also talks about how Laver would win sets 4 and 5(after being down 2 sets to 1) , 6-2,6-1 or something, emphasizing how relaxed/mentally tough he was.
Here's an interview of him with Federer(after Fed won RG) -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gwxYXwvEg1E
So do you agree with his assessment that based on Laver's CYGS alone he's the greatest? Is he putting too much stock in the CYGS?
The career slam is very much of a newbie by comparison.
The "career slam" was coined when Agassi won the French, the only major he hadn't won. It has no historical significance really. At the time, much ado was made that there were only 5 men to have done so. I think nearly 5 have done it since. Now, the surfaces, balls, and games are all so homogenized it's not that big a deal.